by Matthew Holloway | Aug 23, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Congressman Eli Crane announced that the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), under President Trump, is offering low-interest federal disaster loans to help businesses, nonprofits, and tribal nations recover from the devastating 2025 wildfires. The loans respond to the Dragon Bravo and White Sage fires, which scorched the Northern Rim of the Grand Canyon and the Kaibab Plateau in Northern Arizona.
The federal disaster declaration, issued by the SBA on August 13th, covers the Arizona counties of Coconino, Gila, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai, as well as the tribal nations of the Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, Havasupai Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, and San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe.
According to a press release from the SBA, “The loan amount can be up to $2 million with interest rates as low as 4% for businesses and 3.625% for PNPs with terms up to 30 years. Interest does not accrue, and payments are not due until 12 months from the date of the first loan disbursement. The SBA sets loan amounts and terms based on each applicant’s financial condition.”
The administration clarified that the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) is available to eligible businesses, small agricultural cooperatives, nurseries, and PNPs with financial losses directly related to the disaster. However, the administration noted it is “unable to provide disaster loans to agricultural producers, farmers, or ranchers, except for aquaculture enterprises.”
The SBA explained that the purpose of the loans is “for working capital needs caused by the disaster, and are available even if the business did not suffer any physical damage. They may be used to pay fixed debts, payroll, accounts payable, and other bills that could have been paid had the disaster not occurred.”
As of this report, the Dragon Bravo fire has burned over 145,000 acres and is 62% contained. It has cut a swath of destruction from the north rim of the Grand Canyon northward along both sides of Arizona State Route 67 for about 12 miles and then along the east side of the State Route for nearly another twenty miles, leaving a scar almost 16 miles wide at its widest point.
The White Sage fire has burned nearly 59,000 acres and is 95% contained after spreading in a widening eastward arc from White Sage flat through the Kaibab National Forest toward Coyote Valley.
In July, Governor Katie Hobbs met with Trump administration officials, including Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, to coordinate with federal authorities on the Dragon Bravo wildfire, days after Congressman Paul Gosar (R-AZ09) joined a growing bipartisan coalition of Arizona leaders calling for an investigation into it. The fire claimed the historic Grand Canyon Lodge along with 50-80 other structures in the area in mid-July.
For more information about the SBA EID loans or to apply, please click here, call SBA’s Customer Service Center at (800) 659-2955, or email disastercustomerservice@sba.gov.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Aug 22, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Social media commentator Chaya Raichik’s Libs of TikTok account is calling for charges against current Phoenix City Councilwoman and former Arizona State Senator Anna Hernandez (D) after she allegedly posted a warning threatening the security of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and interfering with their legal operations.
In a now-deleted post, screen-captured by Libs of TikTok, Hernandez allegedly wrote, “ALERT/ALERTA” and provided an address in Phoenix where ICE Agents were observed to be operating, along with the main cross streets. She wrote, “ICE IS PRESENT/LA MIGRA ESTÁ PRESENTE” and provided a phone number for a “línea de Defensa” or line of defense, which traces back to the Puente Human Rights Movement, an illegal immigrant advocacy organization.
Libs of TikTok wrote, “Anna Hernandez (D), a Former Arizona State Senator and current Phoenix Councilwoman, made a post on her Instagram doxxing ICE’s live location. She’s interfering with ICE and helping criminal illegals evade arrest. Charge her.”
In a follow-up video post to the platform, Hernandez advised her followers to “resist by:”
- “Demanding transparency from our new police chief
- Forcing MCSO to cut ties with ICE
- Investing in care, not criminalization
- Protecting each other at the neighborhood level”
She wrote that President Donald Trump “federalized D.C.’s police — even though violent crime is at a 30-year low. He deployed the National Guard, swept through historically Black neighborhoods, and targeted residents experiencing homelessness.”
She then claimed, “We’re already seeing PPD violate the rights of unhoused people and put immigrants at risk of deportation. A Trump takeover of PPD would only escalate this violence.
As recently as May, Hernandez was organizing demonstrations against ICE at Arizona’s federal immigration court in Phoenix, writing, “ICE is back, making arrests at Phoenix courts. Community with safe status, it’s time to stand up and make our voices heard!”
The allegations against Hernandez came just days after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was forced to relocate her personal residence due to increased threats to her person and family, along with “vicious doxxing,” described by a Homeland Security spokesman to Fox News.
“Following the media’s publishing of the location of Secretary Noem’s Washington D.C. apartment, she has faced vicious doxxing on the dark web and a surge in death threats, including from the terrorist organizations, cartels, and criminal gangs that DHS targets. Due to threats and security concerns, she has been forced to temporarily stay in secure military housing,” Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said.
“Secretary Noem continues to pay rent for her Navy Yard residence,” she added. “It’s a shame that the media chooses sensationalism over the safety of people enforcing America’s laws to keep Americans safe.”
In July, ICE officers reported a massive increase in assaults, according to a memo sent by U.S. Homeland Security, with extremist groups targeting ICE personnel and their families through similar coordinated doxxing.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Aug 21, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
A letter from Solicitor General of the United States D. John Sauer to the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Mike Johnson has revealed that the Department of Justice is prepared to defend the removal of former Voice of America (VOA) Director Michael Abramowitz from his position. Abramowitz’s removal was ordered by Acting Chief Executive Officer of the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) Kari Lake.
The letter sets a clear argument that restrictions under 22 U.S.C. 6205(e)(l) against Abramowitz’s termination for cause under 5 U.S.C. § 7543, are rendered unconstitutional by Article II § 2 Clause 2.
Solicitor General Sauer explained the restriction against Abramowitz’s termination writing, “The head of Voice of America, an inferior executive officer, is appointed by the Chief Executive Officer of the United States Agency for Global Media. See 22 U.S.C. 6205(e)(l). A federal statute provides that the Chief Executive Officer may remove the head of Voice of America only with the approval of the Independent Broadcasting Advisory Board.”
The Solicitor General then laid out the legal position of the administration that the DOJ “will file in defense of the removal of Michael Abramowitz from that office.”
He wrote:
“Under Article II, inferior executive officers must be removable at will by the President or by a department head acting on the President’s behalf. See Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 591 U.S. 197, 215 (2020).
“The Supreme Court has recognized only one narrow exception to that ‘general rule.’ Ibid. That exception extends, at most, to certain domestic inferior officers ‘with limited duties and no policymaking or administrative authority.’ Id. at 218.
“The head of Voice of America falls outside that exception. Among other things, he exercises significant policymaking or administrative authority in supervising Voice of America, and Voice of America’s activities implicate the President’s authority to manage foreign affairs.”
Sauer added that this opinion is supported by the precedent set in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 591 U.S. 197, 215 (2020) in which the Supreme Court ruling penned by Justice Robers is clear: “In our constitutional system, the executive power belongs to the President, and that power generally includes the ability to supervise and remove the agents who wield executive power in his stead. While we have previously upheld limits on the President’s removal authority in certain contexts, we decline to do so when it comes to principal officers who, acting alone, wield significant executive power. The Constitution requires that such officials remain dependent on the President, who in turn is accountable to the people.”
In short, it is the Solicitor General’s legal opinion that because of the unique, Congressionally-mandated duty of Voice of America to carry out foreign policy objectives and the significant authority the VOA Director has over them, the President and his appointed Acting Chief Executive Officer, Kari Lake, must have the power to appoint and remove personnel from the agency at will to satisfy the President’s duties under the Constitution as vested by Congress: “the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”
As previously reported by AZ Free News, Abramowitz was informed of his dismissal after he declined reassignment to the agency’s Edward R. Murrow Transmitting Station of the International Broadcasting Bureau in Greenville, NC, and that the USAGM maintains “the Chief Executive Officer, acting on the President’s behalf, may lawfully remove the Voice of America Director, an inferior officer.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Aug 19, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Following a post on X mourning the reported buyouts of Arizona Republic writers and reporters, Arizona Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes received a harsh rebuke for her participation in a 2000 stock trading scandal. Mayes acknowledged being a party in a 2003 article after resigning from the newspaper.
In her August 13th post, Mayes wrote, “The buyouts at the Arizona Republic are devastating. Losing legendary reporters like @maryjpitzl means less accountability and less transparency for the public. And it’s bad news for democracy. As a former Republic reporter it breaks my heart to see the state of the paper today.“
Brian Anderson, Founder of the Saguaro Group and Arizona Capitol Oversight, quoted the post from Mayes the following day. His post included a newspaper clipping dating to the 2003 Arizona Republic story that revealed Mayes’ participation in purchasing stock from Central Newspapers Inc. (CNI) shortly before the sale of the Arizona Republic to Gannett Co., Inc.. The stock trade netted the then-beat reporter approximately $5,000, according to Mayes.
Anderson wrote, “When @KrisMayes was a ‘journo’ at @azcentral, she was investigated for insider trading and then suddenly resigned.”
According to a 2022 article in the Republic, when the scandal came to light again in Mayes’ campaign for the AG Office, the Democrat defended the purchase of CNI stock. No charges against Mayes or the other nine members of the Republic newsroom were brought at the time.
However, as the Republic noted, a letter to readers in the newspaper in 2000 from then-Executive Editor Pam Johnson announced the scandal, informing readers that 10 of its “newsroom staff” were flagged by the company after purchasing CNI stock through their 401(k) accounts.
Johnson, who passed away at the age of 74 in 2021, openly chided her staffers, including Mayes, for violating the Republic’s ethics policy. She wrote, “Republic journalists should never attempt to gain from information the general public does not have access to.”
She told readers:
“In this case, we investigated all of those involved and concluded that no one had what securities regulators would consider ‘insider information.’ That is to say, they had no concrete evidence that the company was going to be put up for sale. And therefore, there were no legal implications. They acted on gossip. Still, they heard or saw things that the general public couldn’t.”
“Many of our staff members heard or saw those same things and did not act. As one said: ‘I didn’t know if it was illegal, but I knew it wasn’t right.’ We agree,” she added.
According to AZCentral, the punishments handed down in the incident included suspensions without pay for four supervisors and formal letters placed in the personnel files of six reporters, including Mayes. The Attorney General has maintained that her subsequent resignation was planned in advance so that she could attend law school.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Aug 17, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The case of a Chinese illegal-immigrant-turned-Peoria restaurateur, Lai Kuen “Kelly” Yu, is raising questions among the Republican Party grassroots.
Yu was arrested on May 28th by ICE agents, and her pending deportation back to China has caused what many see as an inexplicable alignment of Democrat politicians, one Republican leader, and the avowedly anti-Trump group ‘Northwest Valley Indivisible.’
Tricia McLaughlin, Assistant Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, laid out plainly in a written statement to AZCentral that Yu, who was reportedly trafficked into the U.S. illegally in 2004, has exhausted all legal avenues to remain in the country. “Lai Kuen Yu, an illegal alien from Hong Kong, was arrested by U.S. Border Patrol in Arizona on February 4, 2004, and two days later was released into the country. She exhausted all her due process and appeals. She has no legal pathways to remain in the U.S.”
Lisa Everett, Republican chair of Legislative District 29, told The Center Square in an interview this week contrary to court records, “Kelly is a woman who came to the United States when she was 18 years old, 21 years old at the time. She was pregnant, fled China due to the one-child policy, and when she arrived, she immediately applied for asylum.”
“She sponsors the high school softball team. She helps with fundraisers for the fire and police department. She has no criminal record, and she does in fact pay her taxes, the business as well as her personal because there are forms you can use to do that,” claimed Everett. “She was scooped up by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) while she was at an immigration meeting that she had to go to because she is married now, and she’s trying to use being married to an American to become a citizen.”
Everett has teamed up with Brent Peak, co-chair of radical leftist activist group Northwest Valley Indivisible, which has rallied with the socialist Working Families Party and aggressively targeted the GOP’s top priority ‘One Big Beautiful Bill,’ President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, and his supporters.
As recently as April, Everett, her LD29 team, and supporters from Legislative District 28 were out counterprotesting against Indivisible’s anti-Trump demonstrations on an almost daily basis for nearly two weeks.
The stunning about-face has made significant waves among West Valley Republicans. One commenter on a post by the Maricopa County Republican Committee asked, “Why is she still in position of the Republican chair?”
Another commenter observed, “We’re seeing a growing problem of white progressive women rebranding themselves as ‘conservatives’ just long enough to slide onto Republican tickets. They talk a good game on vague GOP talking points, but when it comes to the hard issues — border security, law and order, the culture war — they fold right back into Democrat-lite positions. This is how the Uniparty works: infiltrate, dilute, and derail. If we don’t vet candidates for values instead of just labels, we’ll keep getting wolves in MAGA clothing.”
Alongside Everett and Brent, prominent Democrats, including Senators Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly, and Congressman Greg Stanton, have also weighed in on the matter to support Yu. However, the story of Yu’s illegal entry into the U.S. is not entirely clear-cut, and many unanswered questions remain.
According to Yu’s husband, Aldo Urquiza, per AZ Central, she immigrated to the United States illegally via Mexico through a human smuggler. She was reportedly pregnant and fled China due to the CCP’s one-child policy. Initially, she sought legal asylum in the U.S. in 2004 and was released. According to U.S. Homeland Security Investigations, a federal immigration judge issued a removal order in 2005, as reported by Fox 10. This order went through various appeals until Yu was denied asylum by the Ninth Circuit Court in 2016. However, according to the August 2016 unanimous ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Yu’s request for asylum did not rest on China’s One Child Policy but rather her seeking protection “from her father,” and from “persecution based on discrimination against her as an unwed mother.”
The court found:
Lai Kuen Yu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Even if not barred from asylum based on firm resettlement, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Yu did not demonstrate that she suffered harm rising to the level of persecution in Hong Kong or China. See Nagoulko v. 1NS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (persecution is “an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive”).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determinations that Yu failed to demonstrate the government would be unwilling or unable to protect her from her father, see Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 920 (9th Cir. 2010) (applicant bears the burden of establishing that abuse was committed by the government or an agent the government is unwilling or unable to control), and that Yu failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution based on discrimination against her as an unwed mother, see Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1016-17 (being “teased, bothered, discriminated against and harassed” did not compel a finding of persecution); Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 962 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (persecution does not include “mere discrimination, as offensive as it may be”). Thus, Yu’s asylum claim fails.
Because Yu failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
McLaughlin told The Center Square in an email, “On November 14, 2013, the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed her appeal and upheld her final order of removal. On August 23, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied her appeal. On June 12, the Board of Immigration Appeals granted her a temporary stay of removal while they consider her motion to reopen. She will remain in ICE custody pending her removal proceedings.”
While Yu is lauded by her supporters for her civic contributions to her community, critics question how her minor generosity absolves her of illegally overstaying in the U.S. for 21 years.
“Why are so many Democrats and even at least one Republican lining up to take up her case when Yu’s deportation was initiated under the Biden Administration after being adjudicated under the Obama Administration,” questioned one Republican activist.
Yu married her husband Aldo Urquiza in 2025, and according to Everett, is “trying to use being married to an American to become a citizen,” raising the question whether this attempt, if true, places Yu at risk of prosecution under 8 U.S.C. § 1325 and 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a).
According to a source on Capitol Hill, several members of Congress have inquired as to the status of the case and the implications suggest that, short of direct intervention from President Trump, Yu’s deportation order is likely to stand.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
